Appeal No. 2006-2414
Application No. 10/668,514
In the corresponding arguments at page 1 of the reply brief as to this
rejection, appellants appear to be arguing a structural combinability line of
reasoning again. The nature of the teachings and suggestions of Sasaki and Sterler
clearly would have suggested to the artisan the combinability of their teachings to
provide effectively a redundant alarm capability in Sasaki based upon the teachings
and showings in Sterler.
When we turn to the next rejection of dependent claims 5 through 7 further
based upon the teachings of Hallenstvedt, we note that appellants’ arguments at
page 5 of the brief do not argue the actual features of claim 5. Hallenstvedt is a
control system for an engine transmission like that of Sasaki and, as relied upon by
the examiner, the teachings at column 2 of this reference are persuasive of
combinability to enhance the over all system arrangement of Sasaki and Sterler.
From a safety feature perspective, we find that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to have activated an engine cut off device as taught at the bottom of column
2 of Hallenstvedt as an additional safety feature for the operator of the vehicle as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007